Night Strike wrote:Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

No, is just don't believe they should be "charities" for the wealthy.THAT is the reality now. If you have some money already, then you can invest and get returns. People who actually have to work are pretty much left in the short. Some, mostly higher skilled and specialized jobs can still make a reasonable living, but those are becoming fewer and fewer... as are training opportunities for those skilled positions.

And, it will get worse come retirement. Unless you are making about 100K or are very lucky, truly saving enough to retire on is just fiction, though SS is still keeping people afloat for now.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

You and your "government regulations".

The REAL problem is that people are greedy. That, in itself is nature. And, its nature that people at the top will think that the skills THEY have are "more worthy" than the skills of anyone else. People do tend to value their own abilities, skills and attributes more highly than others. Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor. However, get into why they themselves succeeded and you find much more weight given to their own personal skills and hard work. When these factors are allowed to dictate our economy and society, we have market crashes and depressions, like the gold fiasco near the turn of the century, like the events that led up to WWI, AND like the "big D". You ALSO see someone with money willing to damage whatever natural resource or enjoyment people have because the damage is percieved either too far off in time or in distance (We used to talk about "absentee farmers" in CA as almost a synonym for land abuse, but now its "factory farm" -- where you have some generally remote CEOs making the decisions. Only in the case of the corporations, the decisions makers might not be physically distant, they just are removed from the knowledge of what will truly happen) . When you talk corporations, you are talking about an entity specifically designed to protect money of investors and to shield them from most negative consequences of their decisions.

When people "justify" as a matter of course, contracting with firms in places like Bangladesh (of not recently because of the disaster in the garmet factory, but by no means isolated), it becomes easier and easier to pretend that they themselves are not directly responsible for poor conditions, that they "did what they could" to make things better, are doing what they can.... meanwhile, ignoring the millions in this country who plain and simply are not earning enough to put food on the table.

When you allow "the market" to set prices so far below what it actually takes to live in a country, then you are dooming the entire country to poverty. That a few people can earn livings and get by doesn't mean that the rest are "just lazy" or "not deserving", it means that the people in control are greedy and irresponsible.

The part you got correct is that CEOs, stockholders and business owners won't voluntarily cut their paychecks.. no matter how high they are, to bolster the checks of the lower wage workers, no matter how low those wages are, unless they are forced to do so. That is a place where the government has a role... a government run by PEOPLE, will do that. A government run by corporations, as ours is more and more becoming, won't.

Funkyterrance wrote:How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

Nope, you are deluded. The people who get paid are the investors. Workers only come first in bankruptcy proceedings. Else, the stockholders and every executive gets to take what they consider a reasonable wage for themselves... and then splits the rest among those who actually keep the companies working.

CostCo says you're full of it.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Night Strike wrote:Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

No, is just don't believe they should be "charities" for the wealthy.

THAT is the reality now. If you have some money already, then you can invest and get returns. People who actually have to work are pretty much left in the short. Some, mostly higher skilled and specialized jobs can still make a reasonable living, but those are becoming fewer and fewer... as are training opportunities for those skilled positions.

You're going off the deep end again. Jobs that make "a reasonable living" are not at all a rarity, as you seem to be trying to imply.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it will get worse come retirement. Unless you are making about 100K or are very lucky, truly saving enough to retire on is just fiction, though SS is still keeping people afloat for now.

Retirement is a problem for most people, I agree...but in many cases, that is due to a lack of or poor planning on their parts.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

You and your "government regulations".

You and your "corporations are evil".

PLAYER57832 wrote:The REAL problem is that people are greedy. That, in itself is nature. And, its nature that people at the top will think that the skills THEY have are "more worthy" than the skills of anyone else.

I don't think it has that much to do with necessarily thinking they're more worthy...I think it comes down to "getting what you can while you can". And to be honest, that's understandable...I would probably do the same if I had that opportunity (without leaving the job I love).

PLAYER57832 wrote:People do tend to value their own abilities, skills and attributes more highly than others.

Except me. I really am better than everyone else. Just ask me!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:When you allow "the market" to set prices so far below what it actually takes to live in a country, then you are dooming the entire country to poverty.

Are you saying that businesses should NOT do what the customer demands? That seems like a good way to rid yourself of customers.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The part you got correct is that CEOs, stockholders and business owners won't voluntarily cut their paychecks.. no matter how high they are, to bolster the checks of the lower wage workers, no matter how low those wages are, unless they are forced to do so.

You do realize that there are business owners and CEOs who do this, right?

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Funkyterrance wrote:How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

Nope, you are deluded. The people who get paid are the investors. Workers only come first in bankruptcy proceedings. Else, the stockholders and every executive gets to take what they consider a reasonable wage for themselves... and then splits the rest among those who actually keep the companies working.

Woodruff wrote:I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

And yet those same regulations are costing workers even more hours than before because now the government has set up an exact line where businesses must provide benefits such as health insurance and where they do not have to provide it.Previously, if a business were to not offer a benefit or as many hours, they risked losing their workers to other companies who would provide such benefits and hours because it was up to each business to choose where to draw the line, causing actual competition. But now, the government has laid out a standard for every business to be the same, which means there are fewer options for workers because every business knows where the minimum is.

But again, in today's job climate, this is irrelevant because there is little threat to losing a worker to another company when there are no other jobs available. That's the problem...corporations, with some significant help by the government, have made it so that the American worker does not have those options.

Player, are people greedy when they demand that the government force businesses to pay them more than their position is worth?

And if you hate companies that have shareholders, then only work and shop at places that do not. You have the freedom to make that choice, so why don't you want others to have the freedom to make that same choice? Why is the only permissible business model the one that YOU approve of?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

Night Strike wrote:Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

No, is just don't believe they should be "charities" for the wealthy.

THAT is the reality now. If you have some money already, then you can invest and get returns. People who actually have to work are pretty much left in the short. Some, mostly higher skilled and specialized jobs can still make a reasonable living, but those are becoming fewer and fewer... as are training opportunities for those skilled positions.

You're going off the deep end again. Jobs that make "a reasonable living" are not at all a rarity, as you seem to be trying to imply.

No, looking at data. It is getting almost impossible to get a job that will support yourself and a family without a high school diploma, for example. That itself is not necessarily a terrible thing, except that there are plenty of jobs that should not really need a diploma. That's another discussion in itself, but it means kids who are not fully successful have fewer and fewer options other than being dependent.

For those graduating today WITH a high school diploma, the outlook is only slightly better. Even those with college degrees have a tough time of it, and particularly if they chose a degree that might be needed, but doesn't pay that well. Older workers, too have a tough time of it.

Again, one of the main reason so many people seem to be doing better than they are is support from others. In some cases taxpayer support, be it smaller things like WIC or larger things like Section 8 housing & HUD loans, or help from family. In many cases, people are simply borrowing beyond their means and going bankrupt. I don't excuse that at all, but it distorts the picture of how people are really doing.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it will get worse come retirement. Unless you are making about 100K or are very lucky, truly saving enough to retire on is just fiction, though SS is still keeping people afloat for now.

Retirement is a problem for most people, I agree...but in many cases, that is due to a lack of or poor planning on their parts.

LOL'' nice try. No, the truth is that no amount of planning will turn an income of 30-40K into 100K. No amount of planning will yield people who only have a couple hundred a month after utilities, house, etc enough to retire upon.

Basically, if you are making 75K or more, then you are able to set aside enough for retirement, ride out the downturns and such, without a lot of trouble. Those in the lower income brackets do OK only as long as stocks are up, as long as they have the best fund. Fund selection is often almost outside of people's control. Even the worst company supported plan will typically pay off better than individual plans, if for no other reason than the company match. That means that, just like in health care, what happens is decided more by the employer than the individual.

Also, most people don't get even a basic financial literacy education in school. That is changing, but slowly.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

You and your "government regulations".

You and your "corporations are evil".

They can be, particularly when they control the government. They can be far more evil than individuals precisely because they lack any kind of real moral responsibility, in fact are constructed to almost force those in charge to act against what they consider moral in favor of what will benefit stockholders the most.

I have never claimed that all corporations are evil, any more than all people are evil, but to pretend that corporations are not and that the power corporations wield in today's society is not dangerous is to ignore what is happening.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The REAL problem is that people are greedy. That, in itself is nature. And, its nature that people at the top will think that the skills THEY have are "more worthy" than the skills of anyone else.

I don't think it has that much to do with necessarily thinking they're more worthy...I think it comes down to "getting what you can while you can". And to be honest, that's understandable...I would probably do the same if I had that opportunity (without leaving the job I love).

Your point is valid, but I was making a different one. People DO consider the attributes they posses more highly than those seen in other people. When you pair that fact with the natural greed to which you refer (and that I acknowledge), then you get an increased skewing where people who have more continue to not just say "its mine", but to justify why they deserve it and why other people do not. Historically, that becomes a real problem when the elite are more removed from the populace. We had a period of relative "openness" and"sharing", to some extent (not the correct words, but I think you can get the giist). Basically, when royalty will only associate with royalty, only receive advice from other royals or possibly those just below, then its no wonder you have a princess who fails to understand that peasants who cannot buy bread certainly have no money for cake.

Today, we are not quite as bad off as that, but we do have more and more people who seem to think that the idea of work can somehow be replaced by just plopping down a bit of money... and that paying for a service means that you get to decide all the conditions and worth of the work, and therefore the person, that people have no intrinsic value.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

Not talking personal opinion. People are willing to acknowledge that luck plays some role in other people's success, but are less likely to attribute it to their own success.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:When you allow "the market" to set prices so far below what it actually takes to live in a country, then you are dooming the entire country to poverty.

Are you saying that businesses should NOT do what the customer demands? That seems like a good way to rid yourself of customers.

Depends. Business is often about creating demand.

and.. you did cite Costco. As you have mentioned before, if you pay people more, then they can buy more stuff. "Buying stuff" is what most businesses depend upon.BUT.. the thing is that it cannot happen in a vacuume. Too much of today's "economic" analysis is really one-sided and short sighted based on maximizing returns for a few at the top. The fact is that most people don't need to, don't really and truly aspire to be "filthy rich" (started to change the wording, but I think the fact that we still tie that label to "rich" is rather telling in and of itself), but most people do want to have enough to eat, have comfortable houses and to feel that they are doing generally as good as their neighbor.. better than their neighbor in some small way (one might have a better car, another better TVs, etc, etc.). There is "enough" to go around in our country, but not when 1% claim over 99.999% of the wealth and a huge chunk of the power. Also, when money and power are again so closely tied, it inevitably results in big errors, because the things that benefit personal wealth to often contradict what benefits society. One example is parks. A single person could have become very wealthy off of Yellowstone or Yosemite. BUT, as a public resource, we have a storehouse, a living museum that is becoming increasingly important. Its not coincidental that many have made millions from the parks. At the time each park has been created, it has been fraught with controversy.. some still object. Yet, the real fact is that each park has paid for itself many times over, once you go beyond the basic of ticket/camping proceeds versus cost to maintain, and look at the wider areas, all tangential profits, etc. If you look at projected future benefits from that biological museum/storehouse, then each park becomes among the greatest and best investment ever made in our country, possibly in humanity.

The benefits to from forests and ranges along the USDA models (states can use the same title to describe very, very different constructs) are even greater.

YET.... that takes reviewing ALL the data, not just the superficial and immediate balance sheets. That is what gets too often lost when we allow business and corporate interests to become our society's gauge of success, and even (in many respects) our morality

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The part you got correct is that CEOs, stockholders and business owners won't voluntarily cut their paychecks.. no matter how high they are, to bolster the checks of the lower wage workers, no matter how low those wages are, unless they are forced to do so.

You do realize that there are business owners and CEOs who do this, right?

I can name more than a few. Sadly, many wind up going out of business for a variety of reasons. There are some that are still succeeding, but when taxpayer and government support so heavily favor traditional models of business and effectively punish responsible businesses, as happens far too often today because so much of our power structure is vested not with individuals, but those selfsame ultra greedy corporations, then they fight an uphill battle.

I love Costco, but there don't seem to be any anywhere near here. Instead we have 4 Walmarts within an hour's drive, and a plethora of stores that basically follow similar models, just maybe not entirely as extreme as Walmart. And.. they don't ship.

In fact, I suspect Amazon will be the next target for complaints akin to those lodged at Walmart. (but I DO realize Amazon is a very different model).

Night Strike wrote:Player, are people greedy when they demand that the government force businesses to pay them more than their position is worth?

Businesses set the value of their products and business, not people. That is where you err. People are not limitless commodities. People have inherent values, apart from what any business owner claims.In this case, the question is who gets to decide the worth of the people. Historically, society, not individuals get to set the minimum value for people and their labor. This is why slavery and various types of worker abuse are outlawed. People, joined together form government that can and should limit business overreaches such as claiming that humans have no worth other than what any random business owner decides.

Night Strike wrote:And if you hate companies that have shareholders, then only work and shop at places that do not. You have the freedom to make that choice, so why don't you want others to have the freedom to make that same choice? Why is the only permissible business model the one that YOU approve of?

Actually, no on both counts.

I don't "hate companies that have shareholders". Corporations are fine, but not superior to humanity. What benefits a particular corporations has nothing to do with what benefits society or humanity. In fact, there are many cases where meeting "corporate need" means denying basic human rights -- that was proven very much in Bangladesh, as it was proven over and over in our country up until roughly the 1950's.

Secondly, I do NOT truly have the choice to just "opt out". I don't have the choice to not invest in mutual funds if I wish to ever retire. I don't have the choice to buy everything from non-corporate sources. Not even Lancaster old older Amish really have that option any longer. Corporations literally control almost everything in our society.

Corporations are not necessarily bad, but they are not inherently good, either. And, they are an artificial construct, not humanity. Humans, not corporations are what our country should be made of, but lately.. people take second fiddle.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

Add in the very specific town, school and associates you have, and you can boost that more. Also, add in even things like happening to interview with, say, a [casual] surfer when you are a [casual] surfer (or dog lover, child of a farmer.... etc.) and ironically little of how we get to where we are is really and truly all do to our own efforts.

More ironically, even people who excel extraordinarily -- be they champions or heroes -- while responding in fantastic ways to situations, would not have that chance if it were not for the situation. Bruce Jenner would not be Bruce Jenner if he had not spent years of dedication, effort in building his track skills. Still, if he had not faced the particular opponents he did, when he did... would he have become the champion he did? Would Bill Gates, born today, still be ... "Bill Gates"? etc.

It is absolutely important to celebrate skill, but when thinking about society and education and general conditions, it does pay to think about the "what ifs". One very good reason is because so many of these things are within our control to manipulate as society, though not individually.

Woodruff wrote:I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

And yet those same regulations are costing workers even more hours than before because now the government has set up an exact line where businesses must provide benefits such as health insurance and where they do not have to provide it.Previously, if a business were to not offer a benefit or as many hours, they risked losing their workers to other companies who would provide such benefits and hours because it was up to each business to choose where to draw the line, causing actual competition. But now, the government has laid out a standard for every business to be the same, which means there are fewer options for workers because every business knows where the minimum is.

But again, in today's job climate, this is irrelevant because there is little threat to losing a worker to another company when there are no other jobs available. That's the problem...corporations, with some significant help by the government, have made it so that the American worker does not have those options.

Wait, corporations prevent people from getting jobs?

American jobs? Yes. Only someone who routinely blindly defends corporate America, such as yourself, would suggest that outsourcing of jobs to other countries provides jobs here in America.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

So it's your contention, then, that nobody should bother to try to accomplish anything in life because the primary determinant of their success is based on random chance anyway? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Last edited by Woodruff on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Night Strike wrote:Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

No, is just don't believe they should be "charities" for the wealthy.

THAT is the reality now. If you have some money already, then you can invest and get returns. People who actually have to work are pretty much left in the short. Some, mostly higher skilled and specialized jobs can still make a reasonable living, but those are becoming fewer and fewer... as are training opportunities for those skilled positions.

You're going off the deep end again. Jobs that make "a reasonable living" are not at all a rarity, as you seem to be trying to imply.

No, looking at data. It is getting almost impossible to get a job that will support yourself and a family without a high school diploma, for example.

It's almost impossible to get a job that will support yourself and a family without a high school diploma? Gotta be honest with you, I'm really failing to see how that is significant toward "jobs that make a reasonable living being a rarity"...I mean, you're basically looking at the very lowest-level of jobs here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:That itself is not necessarily a terrible thing, except that there are plenty of jobs that should not really need a diploma. That's another discussion in itself, but it means kids who are not fully successful have fewer and fewer options other than being dependent.

Of course kids who are not fully successful are going to have fewer and fewer options. We live in a technological world. That does tend to leave less room for the manual-type of labor, for instance. And again, even if I agreed with you, you're still talking about the lowest level of jobs as if they are the majority of jobs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:For those graduating today WITH a high school diploma, the outlook is only slightly better. Even those with college degrees have a tough time of it, and particularly if they chose a degree that might be needed, but doesn't pay that well. Older workers, too have a tough time of it.

Finding a job can be difficult, sure. But once that job is found, it is not at all a rarity for that job to pay a reasonable wage. You seem to be combining the problems of "finding a job" with "what jobs pay", and that's not a relevant combination. Frankly, your "data" (all unsourced, of course) sucks.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it will get worse come retirement. Unless you are making about 100K or are very lucky, truly saving enough to retire on is just fiction, though SS is still keeping people afloat for now.

Retirement is a problem for most people, I agree...but in many cases, that is due to a lack of or poor planning on their parts.

LOL'' nice try. No, the truth is that no amount of planning will turn an income of 30-40K into 100K.

That is an utterly ludicrous statement. I've never been above the 40K range myself, and my retirement standard of living is going to be pretty nice, even ignoring my military pension. I have saved and invested carefully, and on a very low income for much of that. Your "truth" is utter crap.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No amount of planning will yield people who only have a couple hundred a month after utilities, house, etc enough to retire upon.

A couple hundred a month is plenty to invest. In fact, it's more than I invested per month for almost my entire military career.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

You and your "government regulations".

You and your "corporations are evil".

They can be, particularly when they control the government.

You say "they can be" and yet ignore that there are PLENTY of bad government regulations too. Hold the government to the same standards that you hold corporations to.

PLAYER57832 wrote:They can be far more evil than individuals precisely because they lack any kind of real moral responsibility, in fact are constructed to almost force those in charge to act against what they consider moral in favor of what will benefit stockholders the most.

Evil requires intent, so I'm going to outright disagree with you yet again.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have never claimed that all corporations are evil, any more than all people are evil, but to pretend that corporations are not and that the power corporations wield in today's society is not dangerous is to ignore what is happening.

You certainly go on in these fora as if all corporations are evil, while being a slave to government spending.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Today, we are not quite as bad off as that, but we do have more and more people who seem to think that the idea of work can somehow be replaced by just plopping down a bit of money... and that paying for a service means that you get to decide all the conditions and worth of the work

If the provider of a service doesn't like the monetary and conditional terms that the reciever of the service thinks they're paying for, the provider of the service is free to refuse it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:and therefore the person, that people have no intrinsic value.

What the hell? <rolling eyes>

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:When you allow "the market" to set prices so far below what it actually takes to live in a country, then you are dooming the entire country to poverty.

Are you saying that businesses should NOT do what the customer demands? That seems like a good way to rid yourself of customers.

Depends. Business is often about creating demand.

That's an entirely different thing. So back to my point...are you suggesting that a business should NOT do what the customer demands, which is low prices?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The part you got correct is that CEOs, stockholders and business owners won't voluntarily cut their paychecks.. no matter how high they are, to bolster the checks of the lower wage workers, no matter how low those wages are, unless they are forced to do so.

You do realize that there are business owners and CEOs who do this, right?

I can name more than a few. Sadly, many wind up going out of business for a variety of reasons. There are some that are still succeeding, but when taxpayer and government support so heavily favor traditional models of business and effectively punish responsible businesses, as happens far too often today because so much of our power structure is vested not with individuals, but those selfsame ultra greedy corporations, then they fight an uphill battle.

So you're saying the government should back away from business then...I believe Night Strike would agree with you.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I love Costco, but there don't seem to be any anywhere near here. Instead we have 4 Walmarts within an hour's drive, and a plethora of stores that basically follow similar models, just maybe not entirely as extreme as Walmart. And.. they don't ship.

So it's Wal-Mart's fault that Costco hasn't placed stores anywhere near you and that Costco doesn't ship? It seems to me that the blame there lies with Costco. Wal-Mart SHOULD be trying to expand into as many markets as they can.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

So it's your contention, then, that nobody should bother to try to accomplish anything in life because the primary determinant of their success is based on random chance anyway? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting.

I am simply suggesting that we all recognize that what Obama said is even more significant than when taken at face value, because it also applies to the success we achieve as a result of winning the genetic lottery. One should still want to accomplish things -- but just remember that the accomplishment was only possible because of things you didn't yourself work for.

Obama wrote:If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

So it's your contention, then, that nobody should bother to try to accomplish anything in life because the primary determinant of their success is based on random chance anyway? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting.

I am simply suggesting that we all recognize that what Obama said is even more significant than when taken at face value, because it also applies to the success we achieve as a result of winning the genetic lottery. One should still want to accomplish things -- but just remember that the accomplishment was only possible because of things you didn't yourself work for.

I agree completely that any success necessarily must include the work of others. That does not in any way contend that luck or the work of those others is the primary reason for success, however.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

You dont have to connect it to how we should act. There is no neccessary link. We, as middle class 75th+ percentile intelligence white males, were undeniably lucky when it came to the roll of the game of life dice; does that mean we shouldnt still strive to succeed?

No way, we can still improve our lot through hard work; just recognise that that hard work is only a fraction of the reason why we get to scratch our balls in a nicely heated room while we watch some dribble on a 42 inch flatscreen TV.

Woodruff wrote:I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

And yet those same regulations are costing workers even more hours than before because now the government has set up an exact line where businesses must provide benefits such as health insurance and where they do not have to provide it.Previously, if a business were to not offer a benefit or as many hours, they risked losing their workers to other companies who would provide such benefits and hours because it was up to each business to choose where to draw the line, causing actual competition. But now, the government has laid out a standard for every business to be the same, which means there are fewer options for workers because every business knows where the minimum is.

But again, in today's job climate, this is irrelevant because there is little threat to losing a worker to another company when there are no other jobs available. That's the problem...corporations, with some significant help by the government, have made it so that the American worker does not have those options.

Wait, corporations prevent people from getting jobs?

American jobs? Yes. Only someone who routinely blindly defends corporate America, such as yourself, would suggest that outsourcing of jobs to other countries provides jobs here in America.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.

You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.

I would say that. For example, I freely admit that my success occurred because I was born into an extraordinarily wealthy family (by global standards; middle class by American standards), because I have fair skin color, and because I was gifted with above-average intelligence and skill in mathematics and science. I didn't earn any of that, yet it was probably responsible for upward of 90% of the share of my success so far in life.

So it's your contention, then, that nobody should bother to try to accomplish anything in life because the primary determinant of their success is based on random chance anyway? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting.

I am simply suggesting that we all recognize that what Obama said is even more significant than when taken at face value, because it also applies to the success we achieve as a result of winning the genetic lottery. One should still want to accomplish things -- but just remember that the accomplishment was only possible because of things you didn't yourself work for.

Obama wrote:If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

It's funny because one could turn that Obama quote into a defense of free markets. I wonder if the reactions would differ...

Woodruff wrote:I agree completely that any success necessarily must include the work of others. That does not in any way contend that luck or the work of those others is the primary reason for success, however.

I am contending that luck and the work of others are in fact the primary reason for success for most people in middle class America. Not that it had to be that way -- just that it is. That group of people is born with extraordinary privileges when compared to the average person on the planet, and it is therefore unsurprising to see that person do well in life (again, compared to the average person). If you disagree, you should advance an argument in the opposite direction. To do this, you'd have to show that the gifts granted to, say, a middle-class American by the lottery of birth cannot explain most of that person's success. There are surely a few counter-examples to my contention, but I doubt it is the norm.

Night Strike wrote:Player, are people greedy when they demand that the government force businesses to pay them more than their position is worth?

Businesses set the value of their products and business, not people. That is where you err. People are not limitless commodities. People have inherent values, apart from what any business owner claims.In this case, the question is who gets to decide the worth of the people. Historically, society, not individuals get to set the minimum value for people and their labor. This is why slavery and various types of worker abuse are outlawed. People, joined together form government that can and should limit business overreaches such as claiming that humans have no worth other than what any random business owner decides.

In order to set the value of products, a business MUST factor in the value (cost) that their workers add to those products. It's asinine to think otherwise. If a person thinks that their work is of more value than what a particular business wants to provide, then that person must go out and find a new job that will provide that value. They have no right to demand governmental intervention.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:And if you hate companies that have shareholders, then only work and shop at places that do not. You have the freedom to make that choice, so why don't you want others to have the freedom to make that same choice? Why is the only permissible business model the one that YOU approve of?

Actually, no on both counts.

I don't "hate companies that have shareholders". Corporations are fine, but not superior to humanity. What benefits a particular corporations has nothing to do with what benefits society or humanity. In fact, there are many cases where meeting "corporate need" means denying basic human rights -- that was proven very much in Bangladesh, as it was proven over and over in our country up until roughly the 1950's.

Secondly, I do NOT truly have the choice to just "opt out". I don't have the choice to not invest in mutual funds if I wish to ever retire. I don't have the choice to buy everything from non-corporate sources. Not even Lancaster old older Amish really have that option any longer. Corporations literally control almost everything in our society.

Corporations are not necessarily bad, but they are not inherently good, either. And, they are an artificial construct, not humanity. Humans, not corporations are what our country should be made of, but lately.. people take second fiddle.

No one is forcing you to invest in mutual funds. If you don't like corporations, then stop funding them! Besides, with how much you hate corporations, if they're actually expected to follow the fantasy that you want them to operate on, your mutual funds won't be making any money anyway.

Aren't corporations comprised of and run by humans? Or are they just all robots dictating what happens within? ALL businesses are run by humans, whether they're organized as a corporation or not. Someone needs to learn Business 101.

BigBallinStalin wrote:What do you think autarky would do to an economy?

Depends on the economy.

In a vacuum isnt autarky a good thing?

Trading enables the ability to capture greater benefits at a reduced cost--depending on the two parties' comparative advantages.

For example, it's more costly to produce oranges in Canada than it is in Florida, and in Florida it's more costly to produce... elk? Canadian whiskey? than it is to produce those in Canada.

Therefore, instead of wasting resources on inefficiently producing such goods locally, it makes sense and is more beneficial to trade.

It's the same on an individual level. Imagine a life where you do not trade anything. You'd have to dedicate more resources to producing items which you're not as efficient in producing (i.e. you lack the comparative advantage). There would be no division of labor since the benefits of doing so are unattainable (cuz no trade).

It's the same on a national level. Trade expands the pie.

So, no, even in a vacuum, autarky sucks--compared to the greater benefits of trade.

(Of course, if one's goal is to capture votes, then sure, "busy-work" by the state is effective at that. Tariffs also appease uninformed voters, who tend to be patriotic. Etc.etc.).

You know I agree in theory, but the practicalities of the situation make it rather moot. Its not like China and the US have a nice happy mutually beneficial trade; China makes shit and the US buys it. Its all pretty one way.

Add in that Chinas only comparative advantage is unsustainable (you can always grow oranges better in Florida, but Chinas labour wont always be cheap) and mostly a product of distortion (im sure you can rattle off all the government induced labor market issues) then things start looking pretty messy. Sure I agree trade can be great, but if youre already in a hole, digging some more isnt always the best way out...

Lootifer wrote:Im with Mets.You dont have to connect it to how we should act. There is no neccessary link. We, as middle class 75th+ percentile intelligence white males, were undeniably lucky when it came to the roll of the game of life dice; does that mean we shouldnt still strive to succeed?

The suggestion that luck is the primary reason for success means that we don't NEED to strive to succeed. Given luck, we will succeed whether we try or not. Given a lack of luck, we will not succeed regardless of how hard we try. This is because luck is the primary reason for success.

That's my problem with his argument...that luck is the primary reason for success, and the above is why i don't believe that it is.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Lootifer wrote:Im with Mets.You dont have to connect it to how we should act. There is no neccessary link. We, as middle class 75th+ percentile intelligence white males, were undeniably lucky when it came to the roll of the game of life dice; does that mean we shouldnt still strive to succeed?

The suggestiong that luck is the primary reason for success means that we don't NEED to strive to succeed. Given luck, we will succeed whether we try or not. Given a lack of luck, we will not succeed regardless of how hard we try. This is because luck is the primary reason for success.

That's my problem with his argument...that luck is the primary reason for success, and the above is why i don't believe that it is.

This argument is simply fallacious, though. What you've said is not a reason that luck is not the primary determinant of success. The argument you're making, which is valid, is that we maximize our success if we act as though we have control over our outcomes. I agree. I am simply pointing out that compared to what was available to you simply by being born, what you can do while you're alive is not the biggest factor in your success. If you strongly value a $100,000/year job over a $50,000/year job, then you'll have to work harder to achieve it. But if you could put in not much effort and have enough to live a comfortable life, that is a fairly good indicator that you are born with significant advantages that help you succeed.

I think the argument you are making is that you don't consider it success in life to simply rest on your laurels and accept what you have. That's fine. I am measuring success by objective standards, such as whether you have enough food to eat and whether you have a house to live in, and access to health care. If you are measuring success by a different yardstick, such as improvement relative to your own personal goals in life, then we're just talking past each other.